A legal dispute over the iconic final photographs of Marilyn Monroe has erupted into a high-stakes copyright battle, pitting the widow of the photographer against a major auction house that reportedly profited nearly $1 million from the sale of the images' negatives. The controversy centers on a legendary photo session conducted just weeks before Monroe's death in 1962, with Shannah Stern, widow of photographer Bert Stern, accusing Dallas-based Heritage Auctions of infringing on copyrights by widely distributing high-resolution versions of the photos during a promotional auction last year.
The photographs in question stem from what became known as "The Last Sitting," a three-day session Stern held with Monroe in late June 1962, approximately six weeks before the actress was found dead in her Los Angeles home on August 4, 1962, at the age of 36. During the shoot at the Hotel Bel-Air, Monroe posed in sultry, intimate settings, including lounging on a bed draped only in a white sheet while holding a glass of wine. These images captured the Hollywood icon in a vulnerable and alluring light, cementing their status as some of the most valuable and recognizable in photography history.
Bert Stern, who passed away in June 2013 at the age of 83, transformed the raw materials from that session into enduring works of art. He published two books featuring the photos: "The Last Sitting" in 1982 and "The Complete Last Sitting" in January 2000. Officially licensed prints from the shoot continue to fetch thousands of dollars, providing a steady income stream for Stern's estate, managed by his widow Shannah Stern.
The trouble began last year when Heritage Auctions announced an auction of the original film negatives from the session. To promote the sale, the auction house produced a lavish 274-page catalog that included reproductions of 1,363 out of the 2,571 copyrighted photographs from the shoot. According to Shannah Stern's lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Heritage went further by making high-resolution images of these photos available on its website, accessible to over 2,000 clients who received the catalog.
"Heritage’s ‘purpose was to supplant the original works in their entirety, including by selling and distributing the Infringing catalog to over 2,000 Heritage clients and making high resolution images of the photographs available on the Heritage website,’" Stern alleged in the federal complaint. She claims this unauthorized distribution effectively recreated the entire photo session online and in print, undermining the market for the estate's licensed versions and causing significant financial harm to the family business.
The auction itself took place on December 8, drawing more than 1,000 bidders from around the world. The negatives were ultimately sold to an undisclosed buyer for more than $900,000, according to court documents. Shannah Stern had warned Heritage prior to the sale that the estate had not authorized the transaction, but the auction proceeded regardless. In recent court papers, she further alleged that some of the negatives are now being resold on platforms like eBay, exacerbating the infringement.
In addition to the federal copyright infringement suit, Stern filed a separate lawsuit against Heritage in December in Manhattan Supreme Court specifically challenging the legality of the negatives' sale. Both cases remain ongoing, with Stern seeking at least $150,000 in damages for the use of no fewer than 1,527 images. She also wants a court order compelling Heritage to disclose the identities of the buyers, as well as details on the profits generated from the catalog sales and related promotions.
Heritage Auctions has firmly denied any wrongdoing in the matter. In a statement provided to the press, the company emphasized its respect for artists' rights. “We respect the copyright interests of artists and did so in this case,” the auction house said. It argued that the resale of film negatives, much like prints or other artworks derived from them, does not transfer or infringe upon the original creator's copyrights. “Film negatives, similarly to prints created from those negatives and other artworks, are commonly bought and sold without transferring the original creator’s copyrights in the works. Such resale does not constitute copyright infringement nor does the necessary description, advertisement and display of such works when offering them for sale,” the statement continued.
The dispute highlights longstanding tensions in the art and photography world over the ownership and commercialization of negatives versus the finished works they produce. Legal experts note that while copyrights typically protect the images themselves, the physical negatives can be treated as tangible property that can be sold separately. However, using those negatives to reproduce and distribute the images without permission can cross into infringement territory, especially when done on a large scale as in this promotional campaign.
Monroe's enduring legacy adds another layer of complexity to the case. The actress, born Norma Jeane Mortenson, rose to fame in the 1950s with roles in films like "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" and "Some Like It Hot," becoming a symbol of glamour and tragedy. Her death, ruled a probable suicide by barbiturate overdose, has fueled decades of speculation and media interest. The "Last Sitting" photos, taken during a period of personal turmoil for Monroe—including her recent divorce from Arthur Miller and struggles with mental health—offer a poignant glimpse into her final days, making them particularly coveted by collectors and institutions.
Bert Stern's relationship with Monroe during the shoot was reportedly intense and collaborative. The photographer later described how Monroe arrived late, having consumed champagne, and how the session evolved into a candid exploration of her sensuality. Some images from the series show Monroe applying makeup or reflecting in a mirror, adding to their intimate appeal. Stern retained control over the copyrights throughout his life, and after his death, Shannah Stern has worked to preserve and monetize the archive through galleries, exhibitions, and licensed merchandise.
The auction house's actions, as described in the lawsuit, involved not just the catalog but also digital dissemination that Stern claims reached a global audience. High-resolution scans posted online could potentially be downloaded and shared indefinitely, diluting the exclusivity of official prints. Stern's legal team argues that this was a deliberate strategy to drive up bids on the negatives while bypassing the estate's approval process.
From Heritage's perspective, the sale was a standard transaction in the fine art market, where negatives from historic shoots frequently change hands. The company points out that such sales are commonplace and do not inherently violate copyrights, as the buyer acquires physical ownership without rights to reproduce the images commercially. Over 1,000 bids suggest strong collector interest, underscoring the negatives' value as artifacts tied to Monroe's mystique.
As the lawsuits progress, the outcome could set precedents for how auction houses handle photographic archives. For Shannah Stern, the fight is personal as well as professional; the income from the photos has been a cornerstone of the family's legacy since Bert's death. If successful, her claims could force Heritage to pay substantial damages and restrict further distribution of the materials.
Meanwhile, the broader implications extend to Monroe's estate and the ongoing fascination with her life. While the negatives' buyer remains anonymous, their potential use—whether for private collection or future reproductions—remains a point of contention. Legal proceedings in both federal and state courts are expected to continue into the coming months, with discovery phases likely to reveal more about the behind-the-scenes negotiations and the exact scope of Heritage's promotional efforts.
This battle over pixels and film strips serves as a reminder of how Monroe's image, frozen in time more than six decades ago, continues to generate wealth, controversy, and legal wrangling in the modern era.